In the filing, it is alleged that the NFL and owners furthered their concealment by “approving the very player contracts that enabled the Redskins, Cowboys, Raiders, and Saints to exceed the secret, collusive salary cap” and, prior to and on March 11, 2012, failed to disclose to the players or the NFLPA “that the true reason for the then-proposed reallocation was to penalize the Redskins, Cowboys, Raiders, and Saints for not fully abiding by the Collusive Agreement.”

Hmmm, good luck to the NFLPA in arguing that they had no idea WHAT the reason for the cap reallocations was!

In the filing, it is alleged that the NFL and owners furthered their concealment by “approving the very player contracts that enabled the Redskins, Cowboys, Raiders, and Saints to exceed the secret, collusive salary cap” and, prior to and on March 11, 2012, failed to disclose to the players or the NFLPA “that the true reason for the then-proposed reallocation was to penalize the Redskins, Cowboys, Raiders, and Saints for not fully abiding by the Collusive Agreement.”

Hmmm, good luck to the NFLPA in arguing that they had no idea WHAT the reason for the cap reallocations was!

That's what I'm saying! The time to file this suit was when Goodell and Mara came to them and said "We want to take $46 million from the Skins and Pies, and give it to the other teams." They should have never agreed to that. They can't come back now and say "We changed our minds."

My question is, since this obviously invalidates the NFLPA's agreement to the reallocation, can Burbank now come back and dismiss his dismissal? The timing of this new suit (coming the day after Burbank's ruling) really reeks of more back-room dealing. Is the NFLPA leadership just trying to save face?

Seriously, the NFL set out to punish the Cowboys and Redskins and instead probably shot themselves in the foot. No wonder the Redskins said they weren't going to pursue the case. The NFLPA is doing it for them.

Deadskins wrote:That's what I'm saying! The time to file this suit was when Goodell and Mara came to them and said "We want to take $46 million from the Skins and Pies, and give it to the other teams." They should have never agreed to that. They can't come back now and say "We changed our minds."

I know what you're saying, but look at the timing of how Goodell strong armed the NFLPA. They literally came to them within days of free agency and said we're not raising the salary cap unless you agree to this penalty for the Redskins/Cowboys. They were over a barrel.

Deadskins wrote:My question is, since this obviously invalidates the NFLPA's agreement to the reallocation, can Burbank now come back and dismiss his dismissal? The timing of this new suit (coming the day after Burbank's ruling) really reeks of more back-room dealing. Is the NFLPA leadership just trying to save face?

I don't think so. Burbank didn't say the Redskins didn't have a legitimate claim. He said according to the CBA they didn't have the right to go to arbitration in the first place. See the difference?

Deadskins wrote:That's what I'm saying! The time to file this suit was when Goodell and Mara came to them and said "We want to take $46 million from the Skins and Pies, and give it to the other teams." They should have never agreed to that. They can't come back now and say "We changed our minds."

I know what you're saying, but look at the timing of how Goodell strong armed the NFLPA. They literally came to them within days of free agency and said we're not raising the salary cap unless you agree to this penalty for the Redskins/Cowboys. They were over a barrel.

Deadskins wrote:My question is, since this obviously invalidates the NFLPA's agreement to the reallocation, can Burbank now come back and dismiss his dismissal? The timing of this new suit (coming the day after Burbank's ruling) really reeks of more back-room dealing. Is the NFLPA leadership just trying to save face?

I don't think so. Burbank didn't say the Redskins didn't have a legitimate claim. He said according to the CBA they didn't have the right to go to arbitration in the first place. See the difference?

I see the difference, but I don't think you do. What Burbank said (and why the NFL asked for the dismissal), was that because the NFLPA agreed to the reallocations, then the Skins and Pies didn't have the right to the arbitration under the CBA. But if the NFLPA really didn't agree, as is obviously the case from this suit, does that change things? I don't know.

As a condition of the end of the lockout last year, the players agreed to drop all pending litigation against the league, and the league claims the agreement clearly covered litigation for offenses both "known and unknown." The union will argue that the impositions of the penalties against the Redskins and Cowboys brought previously unknown information to light, and that they never agreed not to sue over this specific behavior. But if that "known and unknown" clause is legit, it's hard to see how they have a case. One point to note, however: This suit has been filed in the U.S. District Court in Minneapolis, under the jurisdiction of Judge David Doty, who has leaned so heavily in favor of the players in past disputes that the owners made it a point to remove arbitration matters from his jurisdiction in the new collective bargaining agreement. It was arbitration Stephen Burbank, historically more friendly to the owners, who threw out the Redskins' and Cowboys' complaint Tuesday.

The point for now is that, if the NFL simply hadn’t gone after the Redskins and Cowboys, the NFL wouldn’t currently be dealing with the present claim, which makes abundantly clear that the next nine years of labor peace will entail plenty of labor but not much peace.